Forum:Chat issues (Part 6000)
I'm sure you're all sick of hearing about chat (I know I'm sick to death of it, especially since I don't even use the thing), but when there are accusations like this going on, along with all the other comments similar going like this (and there are several I've seen, some forums have been created just on specific chat incidents), something really needs to happen. Basically, I'm begging any of the people running the whole chat system/doing all the rules at Brickipedia:Chat- get a chatlogger in there or do something else which will make all this nonsense end. Despite popular belief, I do have a life, and believe it or not, but the main reason I come on the wiki is not to listen to kids bickering and calling each other names. Now, if we had evidence and could take action on the offenders, fine, but this constant "he said this, he said that" that cannot be backed up has got to stop. Chat is not the primary focus of the wiki, it's far, far from it, and if all it does is cause pathetic arguments, why do we even have it if it can't be effectively moderated? 04:34, January 22, 2012 (UTC) *Totally agree with you on this. Something definitely has to be done about it.This is the exact same thing I lectured on this morning (another accusation and confusion, although, I was ignored.) I would 100% support a chat logger (a.k.a chatbot), although I heard that wikia fixed something and now you can't use the chat bot. I too am getting really sick of this, tired of users complaining (I mean, come on, most of them are over 13 and still fighting?). 04:50, January 22, 2012 (UTC) * It would be nice if you could kick someone from chat without getting *some people* accusing you of being out to get them or of following CGCJ's orders. Just trust that the chatmods and admins know what they are doing if they kick you, because you, *the community*, have voted for every single chatmod and admin to have those powers. I mean, seriously, if you've been banned for a day due to personal attacking or spamming, just accept it, stop whinging to people like NHL or me... - CJC 10:23, January 22, 2012 (UTC) **And I think this is only Forum 5983 on chat issues. - CJC 10:23, January 22, 2012 (UTC) * Can't really say anything, very rarely on chat, but let's get on with it. * Wholeheartedly support if it's doable, and if it isn't, just get rid of Chat again. It's driving me insane. ::This. -[[User:King of Nynrah|'King of Nynrah']] [[User talk:King of Nynrah|'Talk']] 16:37, January 22, 2012 (UTC) * We could stop telling people why we ban them so they can't moan about it :P - CJC 16:39, January 22, 2012 (UTC) **Haha.... but why did u ban me cjc? 16:40, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :Support getting rid of it, or getting a chatbot. 17:56, January 22, 2012 (UTC) * I'd say the chat still does good (i.e., me and SKP making templates and stuff), and I think we should just ignore the people who get banned for spamming and then complain... - CJC 17:57, January 22, 2012 (UTC) * Per CJC. The main reason I use chat is to discuss (primarily with CJC) ideas for new templates and ways to improve on things. 21:03, January 22, 2012 (UTC) *:The only thing is is getting users to quit whinging and man up when they are banned. Also, people need to learn how to be civil individuals when utilizing chat. 21:05, January 22, 2012 (UTC) *Per Skdhjf. Users need to take their punishment for misbehaving in chat. They need to stop whining because it is very annoying and there has been cases recently that a chatmod's buddy got banned so they immediatly get unbanned even though they need to be banned. So basically the chatmod thinks that they need to unban their buddy even though they need to be banned. 21:08, January 22, 2012 (UTC) *:We need more mature and responsible chat mods. 21:20, January 22, 2012 (UTC) **There wouldn't be a problem with this if everyone that made a RfR for chatmod rights got them... *** 22:06, January 23, 2012 (UTC) *'Remove' the chat indefinitely. It's the only way to solve these reiterating issues. Seriously, this extension has been causing way too many problems for this wiki, and is discouraging mainspace editing on this wiki. Also, if people want to chat, there's an IRC that's collecting dust. 01:41, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Per Tat. All my problems come from it. -- 01:42, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :::/me doesn't like IRC. Also, CP, the "problems" you have with it are because you think you can just go around using inappropriate language all you want. Seriously, the people on the LUWiki chat are more mature than the people here. :My life is none of your beeswax. BTW I don't think going on chat 24-Hours and banning is a great idea. -- 02:15, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::We should do a straw poll to see whether we should keep chat or not. 02:15, January 23, 2012 (UTC) Support- This chat is a MESS sometimes. 02:39, January 23, 2012 (UTC) . Chat is a mess if we make it one. Yes, there are people complaining about unfair blocks - we can ignore them. Nobody is forcing anyone to go on chat, and the situation really isn't that bad... every appears to be freaking out over one or two people complaining about perfectly justified bans. I have contacted the person who makes the logbot, and they say that fixing it is on their list of things to do. I say let's keep chat, and when we have the log bot, even better. If people don't want to hear about chat drama, they can choose to ignore it. 03:01, January 23, 2012 (UTC) *Is that person Monchoman45? 03:08, January 23, 2012 (UTC) * I think chat could be excellent if two things happened. 1 - you take away ChatMod from users who misuse it 3 or more times. I don't necessarily think it's bad for users to leave a message on an admins talk page if someone really is abusing their powers. The admins are the ones who really should be responsible and not complain about it (BTW, I don't think this forum is complaining :P). The second thing is, you guys are not near strict enough. You can't be because your policy isn't, but even for things in your policy you're not. You can say that admins only carry out what the community votes, but blocking and banning is something that the community should have nothing to do with that the admins do regularly, even if it's to good users with lots of edits. It seems like you hesitate on that a little because you're used to the community being involved. I think Trolling like that should only get 3 warnings, and from what I've seen it gets nearly 100s. But that's just what I think will make it work (and I do speak from some experience. SOME :P). Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) ** Well, seeing evidence of ChatMod being abused depends on a chatlogger (which was the whole reason why this was made :D). You can't just assume that if someone complains about another user that they're right and the person being complained about is wrong. If we had evidence of abuse, one case would be enough for me to want to remove the chatmod rights. 22:06, January 23, 2012 (UTC) *** Or screenshots. - CJC 22:09, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ****I can easily get screenshots if that's what you need. There has been more than one person complaining, though... (If you include me :P) Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) ** "You can say that admins only carry out what the community votes, but blocking and banning is something that the community should have nothing to do with that the admins do regularly, even if it's to good users with lots of edits." Admins only carry out what the community says?! Admins can block, protect pages, edit the site interface, etc. without any discussion, as long as what they're doing isn't controversial. Nobody ever set up a forum to block a minor vandal for 24 hours, or to fix a problem in MediaWiki:Common.js. And yes, we do consult the community when we have good users with lots of edits, and there's nothing wrong with that. Blocking good users is controversial. Admins are not left to resolve controversial issues single-handedly. 00:00, January 25, 2012 (UTC) ***That's not what I meant at all. What I was saying was that the admins can talk about it, and do certain things without the help of the community. I worded it very badly, I'm really sorry. It's not wrong at all to do what you are doing. All's I meant is that it's not wrong for admins to talk to each other, and decide without the community. I was suggesting it, because I think it works better sometimes. I am really sorry for how I wondered it. BTW, you might want to log in, you've made a couple posts under your IP :P Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) ****You probably already know this, but when admins make decisions without advice from the community, it's usually because information is not allowed to be revealed for privacy reasons. This happens in checkuser situations where you don't want to throw around IP addresses in public. Out of curiosity, in what other cases would it be appropriate for admins to keep their discussion private? Admins are not supposed to be some super-special cabal group that makes all the decisions for us, whether we like it or not. FB100Z • talk • 20:35, January 26, 2012 (UTC) *****When it would offend people is typically a good time. Please don't respond to this message with a "but anything can offend people, that's their problem." :) Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) ******When it would offend someone, then wouldn't it be uncontroversial, and thus not require discussion? Offensive content is almost always bad-faith. FB100Z • talk • 21:06, January 26, 2012 (UTC) *******Judging the recent contest? 06:54, January 28, 2012 (UTC)